Simple Prayer Brings Man Back to Life

[Berserk87]

I guess you guys think Einstein was stupid too.

[remix17]

I guess you guys think Einstein was stupid too.

Meaning what exactly?

[+.Vamp Subscriber²]

True religion is a very difficult thing that can only be seen by the most fortunate, humble, and intelligent persons.

Remember to flush next time something like this comes out.

[shadowmatt]

This is the problem with religion, someone tells a story (with no evidence) and there is a bunch of people how believe it there and then.

Now he wouldnt have turned black and started to decompose after 1 hour. They would have kept oxygen is his blood due to the resuscitation procedures and probably pumped his body full of chemicals which help. Just because his heart had stopped doesnt mean he was dead. That happens all the time and is by no means a miracle, there are other ways of keeping the brain alive without the heart pumping on its own, you brain dies when it is starved of oxygen. People are routinely (in hospitals) dead for more than the 5+ minutes it takes to kill the brain by keeping the brain and the blood oxygenated.

The story itself is told with a degree of exaggeration, such as the blackened body, and focuses on the miracle doctor setting him up as one before the facts of the story are told. If there was no mention of a miracle doctor this would have just been reported as a good outcome with some hard working ER staff.

At the end of the day, somebodys heart stopped (not a death) and they resuscitated him after continually working on him for the time his heart stopped. The problem they did have is restarting his heart, which was damaged by the heart attack.

The religious see it as a miracle, scientists would see it as an unlikely outcome (given the time taken) from a standard procedure. Its science which built the machines, educated the doctors and developed the drugs used.

A real miracle would be one of the following.

1. His heart restarted on its own with no intervention from people trained in restarting hearts

2. His brain didn't get oxygen, there was no resuscitation for that 40+ minutes and miracle doctor walked in said a prayer and he woke up

3. The Lord God himself came down from heaven and put on a doctors coat, so as not to bet his white robe and bearded dirty and began resuscitation.

Science has for too long been usurped by religion, the world isnt flat, women are NOT witches, the earth goes around the sun, the stars are not angels, every pretzel / dogs arse / bit of toast with a man like stain are not messages from jesus, free people are not blasphemers, the church rewrites the bible at will, the Pope is a Nazi deserter and god doesnt exist.

[primexx]

A real miracle would be one of the following.

1. His heart restarted on its own with no intervention from people trained in restarting hearts

2. His brain didn't get oxygen, there was no resuscitation for that 40+ minutes and miracle doctor walked in said a prayer and he woke up

3. The Lord God himself came down from heaven and put on a doctors coat, so as not to bet his white robe and bearded dirty and began resuscitation.

actually number 1 and 2 can't be verified as miracles either. It's possible that your heart restart on its own for a variety of factors, perhaps someone who despite not being trained in restarting hearts hit the right place coincidentally, or some internal mechanism caused a restarting. For number two, who's to say that it isn't a lucky coincidence that number 1 happened just as the doctor was praying?

[Berserk87]

Meaning what exactly?

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/16.html

[revvo]

^ Someone not breathing for an hour and beginning to decompose ??? Easily explained by science ? :laugh:

The 'science' I always read says, coming back to life after this long is not possible, and certainly NOT without brain damage.

What's not explained today, will be explained tomorow. We all thought the world was flat at some point right?

The nice thing is that the man's not dead..... regardless of what happened, but there is still no way that this "God" fellow did anything, because that can never be proven and if you try to argue it by disproving it, every Huckabee follower will chase you down with flaming towels and call you a sinner.

Just because you can't explain a given situation, it doesn't mean that "God" did it, or that it was destined to happen. There is a reason for everything. The great thing about scientists is that they disprove eachother all the time and as we do this, we're learning more and more about ourselves and the rest of the world. Religion prevents that, it tells you to accept what's given in the holy books and teachings and to not support anything that go against it.

[gigapixels Veteran]

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/16.html

Point being what, exactly? There are plenty of very intelligent people who believe in God or in some other religion or spiritual idea. They still have no scientific basis whatsoever that can prove that such things are real. That doesn't make them idiots, but just that they have given in to the part of human nature that doesn't want to let ourselves believe the fact that this is all there is.

[vincent]

http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/16.html

Einstein was a pantheist who followed Spinoza's argument, in which he didn't believe in a deity that dealt with the personal lives of humans, but one that reflected itself in nature, not concerned with the day to day acitvities of mankind.

You need to do a bit of research before pulling out your arguments.

[remix17]

Point being what, exactly? There are plenty of very intelligent people who believe in God or in some other religion or spiritual idea. They still have no scientific basis whatsoever that can prove that such things are real. That doesn't make them idiots, but just that they have given in to the part of human nature that doesn't want to let ourselves believe the fact that this is all there is.

When Einstein said that God did not play dice, he didn't mean actual God, more like a metaphor for nature. But I'm not surprised that you would draw that conclusion.

[Joshie]

I call BS on the religious aspect of this sort of thing.

It always seems like everyone forgets the once-to-live-once-to-die thing asserted in Judaism and Christianity. Since when are we believing in resurrection all the damn bloody time now?

Either he died and was brought back, and yet another biblical rule is thrown out, or he was never dead, and no miracle occurred at all.

Pick.

[primexx]

I call BS on the religious aspect of this sort of thing.

It always seems like everyone forgets the once-to-live-once-to-die thing asserted in Judaism and Christianity. Since when are we believing in resurrection all the damn bloody time now?

Either he died and was brought back, and yet another biblical rule is thrown out, or he was never dead, and no miracle occurred at all.

Pick.

that's a rather...interesting way of looking at it

[Berserk87]

Einstein was a pantheist who followed Spinoza's argument, in which he didn't believe in a deity that dealt with the personal lives of humans, but one that reflected itself in nature, not concerned with the day to day acitvities of mankind.

You need to do a bit of research before pulling out your arguments.

I read and understood what i was saying.

there are many intelligent people who believe in a God, or another external force that influences the earth.

yet there are a lot of people that just came into this thread to say "religions are scams" or "there is no God" etc...

the point was there are a lot of people on the forum that need to grow the f*** up, and respect peoples beliefs.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

There's a difference between respecting beliefs and agreeing with them.

If somebody doesn't agree with your beliefs (e.g. you believe in a god and they don't), that isn't disrespecting the belief, it's simply not agreeing with it.

Of course statements like "religion is a scam" is actually disrespectful (and silly, as it isn't true)

Edited February 26, 2008 by The_Decryptor

[Bant Veteran]

the point was there are a lot of people on the forum that need to grow the f*** up, and respect peoples beliefs.

Respect is earned, and your beliefs have earned no such thing from me. You have the right/privilege to believe what you want and say what you want, and it would be wrong for someone to stop you from doing that. However, other people also have these rights, and you can be sure that there will be people that disagree with you and vocalize their feelings. God smackin' a dead guy with the revival stick is as silly sounding to me as Jesus Christ turning water into wine, Michael Bay making intelligent movies, etc.

There is a difference between respecting someone's rights and respecting someone's beliefs. Saying that religion is a scam may be disrespectful, and it may be untrue in many circumstances, but in others it may have truth. Like, for instance, Scientology is clearly a scam. It isn't fair to suggest that people shouldn't express their opinion just because it might offend someone else. Seriously, no offense intended, but if you are offended by a post on a message board by someone you don't know, perhaps you should do some growing yourself.

[Thrawn]

Respect is earned, and your beliefs have earned no such thing from me.

No. No. Respect is something due to everyone. We should respect all peaceful persons. Oppositely, respectability can be lost, or in other words, dis-respect is earned. That is why Scientology as an idea deserves what it gets.

Similarly, Christians who hold derisive feelings about others over their beliefs, can lose respect? some do. Many Christians don?t, and they have my respect. Humans can lose respect this way, but otherwise, all humans and even the animal life-forms deserve our respect. Unfortunately, this Western civilization does not even respect the right of the animals and plants to live, etc. Similarly, by your statements you do not even respect your fellow men. But I don't dis-respect you for just that little thing, you just don't know any better.

In my religion, some beliefs like this resurrection event can be considered as childish... but like children, the believers are not to be condemned for it. They just don't have the spiritual knowledge to put things in the right perspective, and it's not even their fault. Such knowledge is hard to find, like I said, and it is non-denominational and coming from God.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Thrawn

[=NickJ=]

True religion is a very difficult thing that can only be seen by the most fortunate, humble, and intelligent persons. But university degrees do not directly help to develop the intelligence needed.

:rofl: :laugh: :rofl: :laugh: :rofl: :laugh:

Please please PLEASE tell me you can see that this phrase needs to go in the dictionary under the definition of irony. Not only saying you must be humble immediately counteracted by specifying a requirement for superiority, but then counteracting THAT by not knowing you'd written it!

Just in case you needed a quick refresher, the definition of humble is:

hum?ble /ˈhʌmbəl, ˈʌm-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[huhm-buhl, uhm-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -bler, -blest, verb, -bled, -bling.

?adjective

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.

This post has made my day.

Bravo, amen...i mean than;) ;)

[gigapixels Veteran]

When Einstein said that God did not play dice, he didn't mean actual God, more like a metaphor for nature. But I'm not surprised that you would draw that conclusion.

Yeah, but my point still stands for others. I don't blame some people for believing in some spiritual entity or idea; it's very tempting to think that this is not all there is, and that when we are done with this life we get to be with our loved ones for all eternity. Who doesn't want to believe that? I wish I could to be honest, but I simply cannot because it goes against everything else I know about this world.

It's when you get to be somebody that believes it's your very life mission to preach to everybody else and you flaunt your beliefs around, making sure that everybody knows... That's when I have a problem with those that believe.

[Bant Veteran]

No. No. Respect is something due to everyone. We should respect all peaceful persons. Oppositely, respectability can be lost, or in other words, dis-respect is earned. That is why Scientology as an idea deserves what it gets.

Similarly, Christians who hold derisive feelings about others over their beliefs, can lose respect… some do. Many Christians don’t, and they have my respect. Humans can lose respect this way, but otherwise, all humans and even the animal life-forms deserve our respect. Unfortunately, this Western civilization does not even respect the right of the animals and plants to live, etc. Similarly, by your statements you do not even respect your fellow men. But I don't dis-respect you for just that little thing, you just don't know any better.

In my religion, some beliefs like this resurrection event can be considered as childish... but like children, the believers are not to be condemned for it. They just don't have the spiritual knowledge to put things in the right perspective, and it's not even their fault. Such knowledge is hard to find, like I said, and it is non-denominational and coming from God.

No... No. Let me help you understand. Lets say that I feel that you are being disrespectful to me by disagreeing with me because I perceive your opinion to be disrespectful, should you respect me by shutting up? Or does my opinion offend you? Is my opinion disrespectful? Should I shut up?

Among the many definitions of respect, there are two that are interfering here:

1. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
   
2. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
   

Now do you see? You should reread my previous post under the influence of definition 1. You do not usually begin knowing someone and automatically assume they are an excellent human being, you may assume they are neutral, but you don't idolize them. You treat them respectfully (with courtesy), you show them respect (courtesy), but that does not necessarily mean you have respect (a sense of excellence) for their character. When a person speaks about something you disagree with it is not disrespectful to voice your opinion, and thats what this is about.

Your religious beliefs are ridiculous. Get off your foot stool. And who do you think you are to assume how I feel about the fellow members of our species or other life on this planet? I am extremely respectful to them, I have respect for their lives and the experiences they've had, but I have no respect for their idiotic ideas. As I have none for yours.

[Joshie]

that's a rather...interesting way of looking at it

Is it unreasonable, though? It's always been the first thought in my head when I read another story about someone being 'brought back'. It's like a new kind of Christian mysticism, and prayer is remarkably similar to casting spells, and a doctor can mutter a word to his deity and bring back the dead as if he himself is the friggin' messiah.

From a religious aspect, it gives humans too much credit (the bible never suggested prayer was so all-purpose). Meanwhile, from a scientific aspect, it gives humans too little credit ("he was dead and clearly decaying--no comprehensible means could possibly bring him back!").

It's not even just Old Testament stuff. It's in the NT, so even the "it was thrown out when Christ came" crowd should pay at least a little attention to it.

[Thrawn]

As I have none for yours.

Instead of random quotes passed on as definitions, or say, the oldschool Oxford English dictionary, let's use the more democratic Wikitionary:

Noun

respect (uncountable)

1. Admiration for a person or entity because of perceived merit

2. Regard for the rights of others; tolerance.

So you see poor Bant, you're confused, but that's OK: I think you have your merits (you have made a few OK themes... nothing really original, mostly luna-mods), and I think you have a right to feel as you do in your post.

While respecting you, I can still consider you clueless.

[remix17]

the point was there are a lot of people on the forum that need to grow the f*** up, and respect peoples beliefs.

Now you need to understand that what you are asking me to do is physically impossible. I either have respect for you and your ideals or I don't have respect for them. You can't force me nor convince me to have respect for certain things. This is outside my conscious control. You can change my mind by making a better argument and perhaps I will start to respect your ideas upon reevaluation. And like others said, respect is earned. Respect is not attributed based on status, but based on merit.

When I meet someone for the first time I have no opinion of them, it's a blank state ready to be filled. And based on how I perceive that person, their ideals and beliefs, I will automatically attribute to them an amount of respect I feel they deserve. And this is not a conscious decision on my part, but an autonomous mental process.

No. No. Respect is something due to everyone. We should respect all peaceful persons. Oppositely, respectability can be lost, or in other words, dis-respect is earned. That is why Scientology as an idea deserves what it gets.

Same response applies to you.

Yeah, but my point still stands for others. I don't blame some people for believing in some spiritual entity or idea; it's very tempting to think that this is not all there is, and that when we are done with this life we get to be with our loved ones for all eternity. Who doesn't want to believe that? I wish I could to be honest, but I simply cannot because it goes against everything else I know about this world.

Well I believe that anyone who is tempted to believe such things is weak-minded.

[primexx]

I read and understood what i was saying.

there are many intelligent people who believe in a God, or another external force that influences the earth.

yet there are a lot of people that just came into this thread to say "religions are scams" or "there is no God" etc...

the point was there are a lot of people on the forum that need to grow the f*** up, and respect peoples beliefs.

Sure there are many intelligent people who believe in a god, that doesn't validate the claim that god is anything more than fairies. Alister McGrath is a very intelligent person, and he's a great theologian, but much of the things that he says with regards to religion is still pretty bull****ty upon closer examination. Or let's take a different example, many great scientists also believe in a personal god, some biologists, and if you ask them how they reconcile the belief with the facts and theories which they themselves discover and formulate, their answer will probably boil down to either a compartmentalization of knowledge, or some sort of double-think.

Oh and what's wrong with saying "religions are scams" or "there is no god"? They both have more support, in fact, than "there is god".

Of course statements like "religion is a scam" is actually disrespectful (and silly, as it isn't true)

how could uttering either a true statement or a personal opinion possibly be disrespectful? and yes, it is true on some occasions.

Is it unreasonable, though? It's always been the first thought in my head when I read another story about someone being 'brought back'. It's like a new kind of Christian mysticism, and prayer is remarkably similar to casting spells, and a doctor can mutter a word to his deity and bring back the dead as if he himself is the friggin' messiah.

From a religious aspect, it gives humans too much credit (the bible never suggested prayer was so all-purpose). Meanwhile, from a scientific aspect, it gives humans too little credit ("he was dead and clearly decaying--no comprehensible means could possibly bring him back!").

It's not even just Old Testament stuff. It's in the NT, so even the "it was thrown out when Christ came" crowd should pay at least a little attention to it.

I just found it quite interesting, it's one way you could look at it, i guess.

Respect is something due to everyone.

I've already addressed this, and I repeat, ridiculous notion, several times.

Now you need to understand that what you are asking me to do is physically impossible...

I'm starting to think this is something of pascal's wager's sort where no matter how many times you rebut the assertion they'll still insist on it as if you never rebutted it. I count at least 5 times this issue has been addressed by various people, including the two of us, and this is only counting posts where we actually type something out, rather than simply linking to an older reply.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I guess it was silly of me to come into this thread expecting proof that prayers can save lives. :pinch:

[Kushan]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that this has anything to do with "divine intervention" but more than likely has to do with something we call "bending the truth".

Too much of the story doesn't add up, why were they trying to revive him for an HOUR? Why was his body "decomposing" so quickly? (While true that decomposition sets in fairly quickly, it wouldn't be visible for several hours after death). It even states that his body had turned "black with death" - when does that ever happen? I thought dead people went pale, then black after weeks of decomposition, not minutes.

Much more information and cross-examination of this case would be required for me to even consider it as being factually accurate, let alone a medical anomaly.

Oh and the site that reported this is heavily affiliated with Fox News, who are well known for their shoddy journalism and extremely biased reports.